Life Imitates the Onion
— Ace

From 2003. Soda taxes were a gagline back then.

Americans Demand Increased Governmental Protection From Selves

NOVEMBER 5, 2003 | ISSUE 39•43

NEW YORK—Alarmed by the unhealthy choices they make every day, more and more Americans are calling on the government to enact legislation that will protect them from their own behavior.

"The government is finally starting to take some responsibility for the effect my behavior has on others," said New York City resident Alec Haverchuk, 44, who is prohibited by law from smoking in restaurants and bars. "But we have a long way to go. I can still light up on city streets and in the privacy of my own home. I mean, legislators acknowledge that my cigarette smoke could give others cancer, but don't they care about me, too?"

"It's not just about Americans eating too many fries or cracking their skulls open when they fall off their bicycles," said Los Angeles resident Rebecca Burnie, 26. "It's a financial issue, too. I spend all my money on trendy clothes and a nightlife that I can't afford. I'm $23,000 in debt, but the credit-card companies keep letting me spend. It's obscene that the government allows those companies to allow me to do this to myself. Why do I pay my taxes?"

Beginning with seatbelt legislation in the 1970s, concern over dangerous behavior has resulted in increased governmental oversight of private activities. Burnie and Haverchuk are only two of a growing number of citizens who argue that legislation should be enacted to protect them from their own bad habits and poor decisions.

Anita Andelman of the American Citizen Protection Group is at the forefront of the fight for "greater guardianship for all Americans."

"Legislation targeting harmful substances like drugs and alcohol is a good start, but that's all it is—a start," Andelman said. "My car automatically puts my seatbelt on me whenever I get into it. There's no chance that I'll make the risky decision to leave it off. So why am I still legally allowed to drink too much caffeine, watch television for seven hours a day, and, in some states, even ride in the back of a pick-up truck? It just isn't right."

The ACPG has also come out in favor of California's proposed "soda tax," which addresses unhealthy eating habits.

Thanks to David P.

It's not just soda taxes, either. Our "expert class" now says it's bad for kids to have best friends.

How deep must the depths of anxiety be into which our administrative class is regularly plunged. They are getting the bends. They are seeing spots. Potential trouble. Anything that hints of exclusivity. These are operatically pathological attitudes, utterly paranoid and inimical to human liberty in any form. No matter how 'political' this insanity seems, real politics -- practiced by those who are friends, if nothing else -- is impossible in a world where no friend can be closer or better to you or I than any other.

There is a large amount of life I put into the category of "Stuff that government workers and administrators should not even have an opinion, let alone a policy about."

They don't see it that way, apparently.

Especially because most fail at the tasks they actually are assigned. So, like Obama, they go a-huntin' for new tasks they can (arguably) succeed at.

Posted by: Ace at 10:20 AM | Comments (73)
Post contains 563 words, total size 4 kb.

Gates: We'd Rather Not Talk About Containing a Nuclear Iran
— Gabriel Malor

Oh, this is not good:

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that all options are still on the table if Iran were to go nuclear, but he thinks there is still "some time to continue working this problem," conceivably through the use of economic sanctions.

"I don't think we're prepared to even talk about containing a nuclear Iran. I think we're -- we -- our view still is we -- we do not accept the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. And our policies and our efforts are all aimed at preventing that from happening," he said.

Gates said "targeted economic pressures" has "real potential" to add difficulties to the Islamic Republic, whose government is growing increasingly isolated.

Sanctions, sanctions...y'know I'm having trouble coming up with an example where economic sanctions worked to keep a country from doing what it wants to do in the face of U.S. or international opposition. Just doesn't seem to be an effective use of foreign policy.

Boy, I wish somebody'd ask the President about that. He's supposed to be pretty smart, right?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:02 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama's Experts Cry Foul; They Didn't Support a Drilling Moratorium
— Gabriel Malor

Echoing the ObamaCare debate, wherein Obama misquoted and misstated the views of "experts" to sell his healthcare system overhaul, the folks Obama said suggested an economy-crippling moratorium on offshore drilling said no such thing:

The justification offered was an Interior Department report supposedly "peer reviewed" by "experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering." But it turned out the drafts the experts saw didn't include any recommendation for a moratorium. Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and "counterproductive" to safety.

This was blatant dishonesty by the administration, on an Orwellian scale. In defense of a policy that has all the earmarks of mindless panic, that penalizes firms and individuals guilty of no wrongdoing and that will worsen rather than improve our energy situation. Ineffective thuggery.

The Gulf states have been pleading with Obama for a week to lift the moratorium. Meanwhile, between golf games the President has been pushing BP to pay compensation to the people who have lost jobs because of the President's moratorium. BP, so far, has held firm in rejecting Obama's bullying.

BP successfully argued it shouldn't be liable for most of the broader economic distress caused by the president's six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. And it fended off demands to pay for restoration of the Gulf coast beyond its prespill conditions.

After the high-profile meeting of administration and BP officials on Wednesday, it was in the interest of neither to discuss such details. BP wanted to look contrite and to make a grand gesture, and the White House wanted to look tough.

Obama doesn't look tough, he looks like a bully. BP should be held to account for its own mistakes, but not the ill-advised, politically motivated anti-prosperity policies of the President.

It's time to start wondering out loud: does Obama actually know about any of this, or is he just a figurehead for the DNC? When he breezed through the BP meeting, was it because he was busy with other things or because he doesn't really know what's going on? Did he give the hypothetical about "figuring out how booms get someplace" because he has been sidelined with a map and a crayon?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:20 AM | Comments (101)
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.

Rahm Emmanuel Likely Out After Midterms
— Ace

Not surprising.

Washington insiders say he will quit within six to eight months in frustration at their unwillingness to "bang heads together" to get policy pushed through.

...

"I would bet he will go after the midterms," said a leading Democratic consultant in Washington. "Nobody thinks it's working but they can't get rid of him – that would look awful. He needs the right sort of job to go to but the consensus is he'll go."

An official from the Bill Clinton era said that "no one will be surprised" if Mr Emanuel left after the midterm elections in November, when the Democratic party will battle to save its majorities in the house of representatives and the senate.

It is well known in Washington that arguments have developed between pragmatic Mr Emanuel, a veteran in Congress where he was known for driving through compromises, and the idealistic inner circle who followed Mr Obama to the White House.

By "pragmatic" they mean pragmatic, but they also mean dirty -- not that the Chicago Pol at the Resolute Desk needs much schooling on that.

Sarah Palin, incidentally, attacked Emmanuel for saying Joe Barton had expressed the GOP philosophy :

RahmEmanuel= as shallow/narrowminded/political/irresponsible as they come,to falsely claim Barton's BP comment is "GOP philosophy"Rahm,u lie

Thanks to Drew.

Posted by: Ace at 09:12 AM | Comments (36)
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

Paul: GOP More Open to Libertarians in 2012
— Gabriel Malor

Not to be outdone by the Fightin' Fundi Muther Hucker, Ron Paul gave an interview to the Daily Caller in which he suggests that things might be different this time around, if you know what I'm saying.

Ron Paul says he hasnÂ’t decided if he'll challenge President Obama for re-election in 2012, but he does predict that Republicans will be more open than they were in 2008 to nominating a libertarian-minded candidate.

"I think thereÂ’s no doubt about it," Paul said in an interview with The Daily Caller.

[...]

"I think even the issue of the Federal Reserve — that issue is almost mainstream," he said. "And I think things have shifted because of the financial crisis as well as the bogging down of our foreign policy. So the American people are looking for some different answers."

No doubt about it, huh? Let's pull the most recent numbers out there:

Ron Paul's favorability with Republican primary voters, at 29/25, is actually worse than the 35/25 we found for him on our poll with independents. That's just more evidence that he might be a bigger player in the 2012 contest if he decided to run as a third party candidate than he would be staying as a GOP also ran.

For comparison's sake, the favorable/unfavorable for other candidates among Republican primary voters:

Palin: 65/17
Gingrich: 58/18
Romney: 57/14
Huckabee: 53/15

I'm sure 2012, like 2008 in the last two months of the campaign, is going to be all about the economy. More than that, it's going to be about voters (especially baby boomers) scared for their retirements and their children's jobs. And there's going to be quite a bit of anger about the Obama government's years of waste.

Which is exactly why only crazy independents are going to vote for a guy who is one of the worst abusers of earmarks in the GOP, won't shut up about the gold standard and fiat currency, thinks the economy tanked because of our "empire", thinks that free trade agreements threaten U.S. sovereignty, wants to abolish social security, and has some...other issues, shall we say.

As one of the commenters said about Sir Hucksalot, when it comes to Ron Paul, FYNQ.

More on Libertarians: Don't get me wrong, I agree with Paul that the GOP may be more open to Libertarian ideas in 2012. But it's going to be the same fiscal conservative ideas that have had a place in the GOP since Reagan.

The "Uncle Fluffy" Libertarianism of Ron Paul and the college kids? Never going to happen. Legalizing marijuana? I love the idea. But it's probably not going to get many GOP followers in 2012. Abolishing social security? Not a bad idea, certainly workable, but whoever we nominate is going to need just a few Baby Boomer votes, y'know? Going to a gold standard? Eesh, we want to grow the economy, not cut it to pieces. Let's try and keep it a little real, okay?

When Paul says the GOP may be more open to Libertarianism, what we're looking at is what will motivate voters. In 2004, most voters were motivated by the War on Terror. In 2008, in the last months of the campaign it was the economy. It's a little early to say where the 2012 campaign will end up, but on the front side, the emphasis has been about the economy.

Mitch Daniels is in trouble for recognizing that, but jumping to the wrong conclusion that voters will want a "truce" on social issues. It's not about a "truce", though. It's about motivation. What will motivate more people, a strong fiscal candidate or a strong socially conservative candidate? I almost can't keep a straight face writing it, but how about a Libertarian?

The problem with the hypothetical Libertarian candidate is that he'll do some things to piss off the fiscal voters and do some things to piss of the social cons, making him not that great a motivator. And while he may get some independents who usually sit out to vote, he's probably also going to turn off the great movable middle that we'll need to persuade if we want to depose Obama.

So, sure, Libertarian ideas may get a hearing in 2012. I buy that. I doubt that they'll be chief motivators for GOP voters, though.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:46 AM | Comments (137)
Post contains 733 words, total size 5 kb.

Oh, Yes, the Huckster is Running
— Gabriel Malor

And he gets a tongue-bath to start the campaign. Sorry for the graphic imagery first thing in the morning, but there's nothing else to call this profile in the New Yorker. Read it for yourself, but here are the takeaways.

First, he's running in 2012. Evidence? He just bought a house in Florida and he's lining up 8,000 word "Meet the Candidate" pieces in the New Yorker that cast him as "the wayward Republican" "best hope" for the GOP. Don't be a fool.

Second, most importantly for consideration when it comes to your primary vote in two years, all you really need to know is that he's being pimped by none other than superdouche Palin-basher and former McCain campaign advisor Steve Schmidt. Of the rotund television personality, Schmidt writes: "There's no one who really provides a better contrast to Sarah Palin, showing her as an entertainer instead of a serious thinker—and there’s not enough oxygen for both of them."

Third, he's carrying a helluva chip on his shoulder. You know who was graceful in the face of poor treatment from commentators? George W. Bush. You know who won't be so graceful? Certain Effin' Doomabee:

"What bothered me more than anything was the disdain that I experienced from the élites: 'Oohhhh, who does Huckabee think he is, speaking about the economy,'" he said, in an accent meant to suggest aristocracy. "They treated me like a total hick," he added. "A complete, uneducated, unprepared hick."

Fourth, if you thought he was riding the populist shtick before the Great Recession, you ain't seen nothing yet. Making appearances in this article: a child, "choking with asthma" that Huck says demonstrates why government must provide healthcare.

There's more, but it's Huckabee, so it's not like he's anyone's first choice here at the HQ. I will note this unintentionally hilarious hypothetical, given the press obsession with Obama's "eleven-dimensional chess."

"He's incredibly competitive," Rex Nelson [Huckabee's Communications Director] told me. "Never overlook that. If Mike Huckabee were to sit down at this table and play me in a game of checkers, he would beat my brains out. HeÂ’s really, really, really competitive, to the point of competing against his staff, competing against his wife."

Lovely.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:13 AM | Comments (485)
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.

Top Headline Comments 6-21-10
— Gabriel Malor

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:06 AM | Comments (118)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Monday Financial Briefing
— Monty

Stock futures for Monday morning are up slightly. DAGGER's plans continue to unfold.

Apparently, not enough people are getting shot in the face. They bring a knife; you bring a gun. That's the Chicago way! Unfortunately, the woodland elves and their magical king do not agree.

It seems that you cannot fight a fire by spraying kerosene on it. This comes as news to some people.

More after the jump.

more...

Posted by: Monty at 03:06 AM | Comments (112)
Post contains 695 words, total size 6 kb.

Texas democrats have a problem. Her name is Kesha Rogers
— Purple Avenger

Kesha is apparently a black female running as a Democrat for congress in Texas.

She's been stirring up a hornet's nest saying shit like this:

As I have repeatedly stated, Barack Obama is a threat to the continued existence of the United States, and he must be impeached, or resign. The real question is, what will we replace his bad policies with? Real patriots understand the need to think ahead, to create a meaningful purpose and direction as we rebuild our nation. We know that the next several generations need a better world to live in, which can only be a Post-Obama World.

I have based my campaign for U.S. Congress on a vision for a post-Obama world, one full of nuclear power, an interplanetary manned space program, high-speed railroads, and productive jobs for young people. This is a world where Wall Street bailouts don’t exist, and the retirements, mortgages, and life savings of real people are protected from funding someone’s gambling addiction. This is a world where the U.S.A. is once again a sovereign nation, beholden to its citizens, and working with other sovereign nations in pushing forward mankind’s scientific and cultural greatness, by fostering the creative imagination of the individual in society; it is a world free from the industrial-banking cartels of the British Empire, as well as the degraded views of mankind pushed through today’s “pop culture”...

In case you were wondering about the subtle conspiracy theme that kinda bubbled up there, she's apparently a devout LaRouchite.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 09:20 PM | Comments (120)
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

Overnight Open Thread
— Maetenloch

Happy Father's Day all.

Getting Older Sucks - Or Does it?

What It's Like to Be 40 - By a Formerly Hot 20-something
Here 43 year old Stephanie Dolgoff puts some knowledge to young 20-something ladies about the pros and cons of getting older. And there actually are a lot of pros about being older but Hollywood and TV never talk about these in their obsession with youth.

But here's a secret truth that few people will ever tell you: It's actually kind of cool over here on the other side of young. In fact, the things I thought were essential to a happy life, now that they're gone, turn out not to have been so central after all.

Of course being young is great but often that doesn't exactly translate to being happy or having a satisfying life.

Now things feel more consistently good, as opposed to the bi-polar extremes that add up to youthful fabulousness. For all the things you lose when you hit midlife -- and there is definitely some stuff that sucks about it, those monkey lines on either side of your mouth chief among them -- there are waves of wonderful that you only find out about when you get here.

I could tell you, say, what a rush it is knowing I'm good at my work, rather than working for that pat on the head or that promotion, as I used to. I could also tell you that your friendships -- intense though they can be now -- will become even more satisfying in a few years, because we need less, and so can appreciate what people have to offer, even if it's not perfect. I could tell you that while you will be further from the physical ideal (lemme guess -- you think you're fat, even though you're gorgeous) you will give less of a crap about it, and you will have better sex, to boot.

And then there's the fact that by the time you're in your 30's and 40's, you're usually making decent money, actually own stuff, and generally have an overall better quality of life. Plus you're much more in control of your life and no longer as beholden to the coulds and shoulds of society and peers.

Happiness Starts At 50?

And it's not like your contentment even peaks at 40 - people actually get happier as they get older with a sharp uptick after 50.

Levels of stress and anger dip from our early 20s and continue to decline throughout life. Worry, however, continues to be a problem until our 50s, when it begins tail off.
Happiness and enjoyment begin to rise at a similar age and are still on the up at 85 - the oldest age studied.

So be of good cheer - because no matter how old you are, you still have a lot of joy ahead. And with modern medical advances and some healthy living odds are that you'll be around to enjoy it. more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:00 PM | Comments (858)
Post contains 909 words, total size 8 kb.